Alaska Dep't of Environmental Conservation v. EPA
298 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. granted, 123 S. Ct. 1253 (2003)
Notwithstanding a prior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order of noncompliance, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) issued a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to Teck Cominco Alaska (Cominco), the operator of the Red Dog Mine facility, which allowed... {Continue reading}

Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. E.P.A.
423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005)
Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), among other groups, sought review of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of the San Joaquin Valley's (the Valley) plan for attaining EPA-mandated levels[1] of PM-10 pollutants.[2] The Ninth Circuit held that EPA properly approved the plan... {Continue reading}

Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission
366 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2004)
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which plans, coordinates, and finances regional transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area, appealed a summary judgment[1] and preliminary injunction[2] issued by the district court in favor of Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates and seven... {Continue reading}

California v. United States
215 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2000)
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a Clean Air Act (CAA)[1] action and remanded the case to state court. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Sacramento Air Quality District) brought an action against the United States... {Continue reading}

Coupar v. United States Department of Labor
105 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1997)
Coupar, a federal inmate who had previously worked for Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), filed whistleblowing complaints against FPI under the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA)[1] and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).[2] He claimed that he was transferred to... {Continue reading}

Disimone v. Browner
121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 1997)
For several years, Maricopa and Pima counties, which respectively include the cities of Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona, have had unacceptably high levels of carbon monoxide. The areas failed to attain air quality standards under the Clean Air Act[1] (CAA) by... {Continue reading}

Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District
498 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007)
The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), a trade association representing manufacturers of diesel engines and diesel producers, contested a set of new vehicle regulations enacted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District).[1]These "Fleet Rules" required operators of certain... {Continue reading}

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
217 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon Mobil) challenged the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final rule approving Nevada's revised state implementation plan (SIP), which required an oxygenated fuel standard of 3.5 percent for all gasoline sold in winter. Exxon Mobil claimed that the... {Continue reading}

Grand Canyon Trust v. Tucson Electric Power Co.
391 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004
The Grand Canyon Trust (Trust) appealed from a district court order granting partial summary judgment on the merits and final summary judgment based on laches to the Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson Power). Trust had brought an action alleging that... {Continue reading}

Great Basin Mine Watch v. E.P.A.
401 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2005)
Great Basin Mine Watch (Mine Watch) petitioned for review of a final rule[1] of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which allowed Nevada to divide one of its air quality planning areas under the Clean Air Act (CAA).[2] The Ninth Circuit denied the... {Continue reading}

Hall v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001)
Robert Hall petitioned a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approving revisions to Clark County, Nevada's air quality plan. The Ninth Circuit held that EPA applied an incorrect standard in reviewing the air quality plan. However, the Ninth Circuit... {Continue reading}

Massachusetts v. E.P.A.
127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)
The State of Massachusetts, joined by various other States,[1] local governments[2] and organizations[3] (Petitioners), petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).[4] The agency... {Continue reading}

Massachusetts v. EPA (Oral Argument)
415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
On November 29, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.[1] James Milkey argued for Petitioners, and Gregory Garre argued for Respondents. The case was before the Court after a divided panel (2-1)... {Continue reading}

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
Massachusetts, joined by a diverse array of plaintiffs,[1] sought judicial review of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) denial of a petition asking the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions[2] from new motor vehicles under section 202(a)(1)... {Continue reading}

Ober v. EPA
84 F.3d 304 (9th Cir. 1996)
Phoenix residents adversely affected by excessive levels of airborne particulates petitioned for review of a final decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA had approved Arizona's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the control... {Continue reading}

Ober v. Whitman
243 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2001)
Several asthmatic citizens of Phoenix, Arizona appealed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) federal implementation plan (FIP) for air quality in Phoenix under the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or the "Act").[1] Plaintiffs alleged that EPA's FIP was illegal because it failed... {Continue reading}

Oxygenated Fuels Ass'n, Inc. v. Davis
331 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2003)
Oxygenated Fuels Association (OFA) sued former California Governor Gray Davis and Alan C. Lloyd, Chairman of the California Air Resources Board (collectively California), claiming that California's law banning the use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) as an oxygenator in gasoline... {Continue reading}

Public Citizen v. Department of Transportation
316 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003)
Public Citizen and others (collectively Public Citizen) challenged three regulations promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)[1] and the Clean Air Act (CAA).[2] The Ninth Circuit held that FMCSA failed to... {Continue reading}

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
336 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2003)
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and Great Basin Mine Watch (collectively Reno-Sparks) petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the 2002 Nevada Rule[1] promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Reno-Sparks challenged parts I and II of the 2002 Nevada Rule, which... {Continue reading}

Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
346 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2003), amended by 352 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003)
The Sierra Club challenged the issuance of a final rule by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which stated that nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) in a planning area in California was... {Continue reading}

United States v. Dahl
314 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2589 (2003)
Biking enthusiast Dahl challenged a United States Forest Service (USFS) fee for recreational use of a national forest. The district court convicted him for failure to pay the recreational fee and ordered payment of the fee plus a special assessment.... {Continue reading}

United States v. Dipentino
242 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2001)
The United States sued three employees of Ab-Haz Environmental, Inc. (Ab-Haz) for improperly removing asbestos-containing materials in violation of the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or the "Act").[1] The United States alleged that defendants' removal of asbestos did not conform to... {Continue reading}

United States v. Stone Container Corp.,
196 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 1999)
The Montana Coalition for Heath, Environmental, and Economic Rights (CHEER) gave a sixty-day notice of its intent to sue Stone Container Corporation (Stone) for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA)[1] and other environmental statutes to both the corporation and... {Continue reading}

United States v. Technic Services,
314 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2002)
Defendants (Technic Services, Inc. (TSI) and TSI's secretary and treasurer Rick Rushing) appealed their convictions and sentences under the Clear Air Act (CAA)[1] and Clean Water Act (CWA).[2] The Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed Rushing's conviction on Count 8--solicitation of false... {Continue reading}

United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp.
92 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 944 (1997)
The United States brought an action against Trident Seafoods Corporation (Trident) for violating the asbestos abatement requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Trident had made an offer of judgment before trial, which the government rejected. This offer of judgment... {Continue reading}

United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp.
60 F.3d 556 (9th Cir. 1995)
In May 1988, Trident Seafoods, a seafood processing corporation, purchased and began renovating an abandoned fish cannery in Anacortes, Washington. The renovation included asbestos removal by a subcontractor, which began on August 24, 1988. On September 26, 1988, an asbestos... {Continue reading}

Vigil v. Leavitt
381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004)
Several Phoenix residents, Martha Vigil, Andy Blackledge, and Robin Silver (Petitioners), petitioned for review of a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementing the Clean Air Act (CAA).[1] The rule approved the State of Arizona's state implementation... {Continue reading}

Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. EPA
87 F.3d 280 (9th Cir. 1996)
Air pollutant emitters and trade associations in Washington petitioned for judicial review of the conditional approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Washington's air operating permit program pursuant to Title V[1] of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA conditioned... {Continue reading}